Denny Smith wrote:OK, it has been more than 24 hrs., and you only have 12 replies in favor, and 345 views? DNxHD is not exactly a high demand feature, which us what BM stated. Cheers

The problem with that is, you would have to assume that each of those 345 people own an URSA Mini. I don't think many people would demand a feature for a camera they don't own, unless they're planning on buying it.

Yiumaremcorrect David, the was not saying the 346 hits were from Ursa Mini users, only that the discussion was only looked at by 346 interested viewers, out of which only 12 replied they wanted or needed DNxHD Codec in the Mini. It was the 12 relies that is what I revered to as not too good a response so far. Let's see what happens over the weekend. As with any sample survey, you get one out of X responses. So if the sample was one out of 10, or even 50 represented here, you still only have 120 or 500 odd requests for DNxHD, outmof how many cameras that have been shipped?

Meanwhile, you can always hang a Hyperdeck Shuttle 2 off the back of a Ursa Mini, and record DNxHD in 1920x1080 resolution to a SSD. Cheers

Clicks and likes here are fairly irreverent when it comes to judging demand. Of my clients over 80% use Avid and would prefer DNx delivery. To me that is a lot of demand for DNx., While I can live with the other formats and I can work around to deliver clients what they want I was relaxed in the knowledge that DNx was on the way.Suddenly finding out its not, is a big deal to me and a very unpleasant surprise. I wonder how many don't even bother clicking on topics like this thinking the gray mist will clear any update now?From now on do we have to assume all improvements or updates will be based solely on the squeaky wheel approach?

I was fortunate to be part of a conversation at Band Pro in Los Angeles.Unfortunately through the gray fog of time I do not remember how the subject matter came up.However I do remember the question I asked and that was how BMD was able to provide Prores for their cameras and other recording/playback devices and the answer given to me was that they were probably paying for a blanket license.It became clear to me then that nothing happens in the business world without some money being paid to someone so that things can happen.

Maybe it is not worth the cost to BMD to license DNxHD for the few who need it.

BM is not the only company not using DNxHD anymore, Video Devices dropped DNxHD on their video recorders, the PixE. BMs first video recorder, the Hyperdecks shuttle, had Avid codecs first (DNxHD) then added ProRes down the road. BMCC and Pocket had DNxHD also, but seems it is being currently not supported.Cheers

I can't speak as to the reasons why Blackmagic hasn't implemented the DNx codec when it feels like it should be pretty straightforward. However, there may be more it than we know. That said, I think it would be a valuable addition to the camera. Not many cameras on the market are able to record DNx as well as PRORES and RAW.

As I've stated there are clients and people I know who would prefer to work in the DNx codecs. Having the option to record straight to DNx is a huge plus.

It was definitely one of the reasons I bought the BMCC 2.5K back in the day. That idea that I could shoot RAW, PRORES, and DNxHD in one camera was a dream. At the time RED only did RAW, ARRI had RAW and PRORES, and Canon had H.264 for it's DSLRs. I would love for Blackmagic to continue delivering that flexibility with their flagship cameras.

One other thing that is greyed out in the camera menu that was promised is Shutter Speed. I don't care about Shutter Speed as I prefer to use Shutter Angle. However, that is the one other thing I know was promised in Firmware 4.0 at NAB in 2016 along with the DNx codecs that has been missing since the official release. I'm thrilled however with a lot of the other updates.

If DNx could be added in the next update I know I'd be ecstatic. It would make clients and others that I work with happy as well. Once that is done I have a few ideas of updates I'd love to see that would expand upon the metadata capabilities of the slate. That's more for another thread, but you get the idea that once DNx is crossed off the list there are other updates that can only improve upon an already great camera.

My fingers are crossed that DNx does come.

"I'm well trained in the art of turning **** to gold." - Tim Buttner (timbutt2)

Leon Benzakein wrote:I was fortunate to be part of a conversation at Band Pro in Los Angeles.Unfortunately through the gray fog of time I do not remember how the subject matter came up.However I do remember the question I asked and that was how BMD was able to provide Prores for their cameras and other recording/playback devices and the answer given to me was that they were probably paying for a blanket license.It became clear to me then that nothing happens in the business world without some money being paid to someone so that things can happen.

Maybe it is not worth the cost to BMD to license DNxHD for the few who need it.

Just a thought.

I might be mistaken but doesn't the video assist record DNxHD? So BM would already have the licence?

I think it shouldn't be about demand but simply wanting to give the current and potentially new customers as much as possible. As others have stated not many cameras offer what BM cameras can, adding DNxHD fits right into that mantra.

Thanks Stephen, you are correct on that point, and I do try to be entertaining! That said, I do hope BM decides to include DNx codec in their new cameras, not sure why they dropped it to begin with. After all, DanxHD (Avid) was the first codec BM choose to add to their first Video Recorder, the Hyperdeck Shuttle 2, and ProRes was added in a later revision. Somewhere along the way, this got flipped, and ProRes was included first with the newer cameras, and DNxHD added later.Cheers

Thanks Denny for taking my comment in the light hearted spirit it was meant. I woke up this morning thinking "Oh damn... did I really use stupid?" I really need to make sure I don't post after drinking.